Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The front page of the Toronto Sun displayed an image of Karla Homolka bruised and battered and read, ‘Bernardo Did This to Karla: Crown’. In 1993, Karla Homolka entered into a plea deal in exchange for the testimony against her then-husband Paul Bernardo. Though Homolka pled guilty to two counts of manslaughter, Canadian media outlets painted Homolka as a subservient and battered woman fearful of the abusive Bernardo's reprisal. Then, during Bernardo's trial, rumoured videotapes finally surfaced that exposed Homolka's seemingly wilful role in the gruesome murders of the young girls Kristen French, Leslie Mahaffy, and her sister Tammy Homolka. Although Tammy Homolka's death had been deemed accidental, her body was exhumed, and autopsy reports found lethal traces of sedative drugs in her system. While sedated, both Bernardo and Homolka raped her as she choked and died on her own vomit. After these videotapes surfaced, media representations shifted drastically – referring to Homolka's plea deal as ‘the deal with the devil’. This chapter outlines the crimes committed by Paul Bernardo and Karla Homolka – also known as the Barbie and Ken Killers. Furthermore, it employs a qualitative literature review to document the evolution in the media representations of Homolka and exposes the media's role in the creation of this ‘monstrous’ woman in Canadian history. As this chapter outlines the representational shift of Homolka in the media, it deconstructs the hegemonic notions of proper femininity that often characterise women as deviant. Moreover, from a social constructivist lens, the brutality of Homolka's crimes are considered and examined in the context of the normative ideologies surrounding ideal womanhood and sexuality. I will argue that by dismantling these socially constructed ideologies, the significance of Homolka's whiteness also becomes apparent. As Homolka seems to deviate from her whiteness, media depictions illustrate an incitement of hysteria. Thus, this article questions the validity of the media representations that once depicted Homolka as ‘the girl next door’ – who was acting in accordance with her whiteness – but also inevitably paint her as the ‘devil’.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".